How many deadly encounters have you been in since you seem to be an expert on the subject.

dont have to be an expert on deadly encounters...I said the statement was logically unsound, as in the structure of your argument.

You indicated that you would encourage different people to have different weapons statuses. Then you justify different weapons statuses based on frequency the carrier would have lethal encounters. But at the moment of the lethal encounter itself, the chance of occurrence is a moot point because it is happening. At that point, how is the person at condition 3 better off than a person in condition 1? All other threat conditions being equal, why is one person better off in condition 1 and another in condition 3?

Weapons status matters when something has happened
So what does the chance of something happening got to do with weapons status?

I dont know you from Adam brother, you could be the second coming of Jeff Cooper for all I know. I am perfectly willing to consider that you could have a point, you just didnt reach me with that argument.

So people that don't carry a gun should just give up and not bother training to deal with armed suspects because they are fucked without a gun.

That's not what I'm saying at all. And now you are trying to change the argument. Carrying condition 3 is like carrying the blade of a knife in one pocket and the handle in another with the philosophy that you can put them together if trouble arises. Or like women who bury a can of OC in the bottom of their purses thinking they will be able to get it when attacked.

dont have to be an expert on deadly encounters...I said the statement was logically unsound, as in the structure of your argument.

You indicated that you would encourage different people to have different weapons statuses. Then you justify different weapons statuses based on frequency the carrier would have lethal encounters. But at the moment of the lethal encounter itself, the chance of occurrence is a moot point because it is happening. At that point, how is the person at condition 3 better off than a person in condition 1? All other threat conditions being equal, why is one person better off in condition 1 and another in condition 3?

Weapons status matters when something has happened
So what does the chance of something happening got to do with weapons status?

I dont know you from Adam brother, you could be the second coming of Jeff Cooper for all I know. I am perfectly willing to consider that you could have a point, you just didnt reach me with that argument.

First of all I have never said that condition 3 is better than condition 1. I did say that I prefer to carry condition 1. However there are people that choose to carry condition 3 for whatever reason and they might have a good reason to do so. I also stated that I do offer training on carrying condition 3 for individuals that wish to learn this method of carry.

There has and always be an argument about which is better. The Israeli’s have been carrying condition 3 for years and even some of their special units still do so. Also the individuals that taught me Israeli Combat Shooting also carry condition 3 in Israel a well. I am sure if it was not a good idea to do so they would have probably gotten rid of this method a long time ago.

That's not what I'm saying at all. And now you are trying to change the argument. Carrying condition 3 is like carrying the blade of a knife in one pocket and the handle in another with the philosophy that you can put them together if trouble arises. Or like women who bury a can of OC in the bottom of their purses thinking they will be able to get it when attacked.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

And that is your opinion and you have a right to it however you are not going to change people's minds on this subject. I personally think that carrying condition 3 is not that bad as long as there is proper training involved. I would never carry condition 3 on duty but maybe I would off duty because I have faith in my unarmed training to do so.

I think it boils down to intent. If you are intending to use the gun, because of work, or location, then you should have it ready to use. If you do not intend on using it, then why even have it? In my opinion, walking around with a gun just for fun, or just for the sake of having one, is dumb. In that instance, there is no intent to use it, you have it just for shits and grins. In that instance, there is no reason to even have it loaded. Personally, I think it should be left in the car or house.

Now if you are a cop, contractor, security, then there should be intent to use it. In this case, it should be ready for use in the worst case scenerio. Not assuming that I will have the chance to chamber if I need to. Assuming the worst and hoping for the best.

The question was whether or not its acceptable to carry a round in the chamber. I was taught no. The gun is loaded, but the chamber itself is empty. With double action revolvers, it means you are one trigger pull from shooting, and with an automatic you chamber a round before shooting. It was explained as a safety precaution should you be carrying a pistol in a group of people. If you have a round in the chamber, it should be in your hand and you should be controlling the direction of the gun so as to shoot the right person.

The question was whether or not its acceptable to carry a round in the chamber. I was taught no. The gun is loaded, but the chamber itself is empty. With double action revolvers, it means you are one trigger pull from shooting, and with an automatic you chamber a round before shooting. It was explained as a safety precaution should you be carrying a pistol in a group of people. If you have a round in the chamber, it should be in your hand and you should be controlling the direction of the gun so as to shoot the right person.

Whoever "taught" you is an idiot and doesn't even understand how guns work.